A $60 million settlement has been reached after a 15 year long legal battle. The settlement was reached after a handful of residents of the nearby areas of a Blue Island refinery claim that the refinery has polluted their environment with noxious dust and particles. The owner of the refinery, formally known as Clark Oil and later Premcor, is Valero Energy Corporation.

Several lawsuits were filed against this refinery after an accidental release of 15 tons of catalyst dust that send about 50 high school students to nearby hospital. In November, 2005, a Cook County jury awarded $100,000 in damages in that case, and $120 million to the Plaintiffs who were a part of a class action lawsuit. With this new settlement, people who lived in the refinery’s footprint between October 1993 and January 31, 2001, may be eligible for a portion of the money once the settlement is finalized.

A lawsuit filed by 152 technical writers of Sun Microsystems (company that developed the leading programming language, Java, and managing numerous other database and programming tools including Oracle), finally got a preliminary approval for $5 million. According to the lawsuit, writers were not paid by Sun, for working overtime or during mean breaks.

The lawsuit challenged the computer company’s policy of classifying the writers who produce technical documents and information manuals as professionals exempt from State of California overtime laws.

The writers often worked around 60 hours a week during the launch of new products, and should have been paid time and half for every hour over 40. Employees who disagree with the settlement can present their objections to the court.

Working overtime during busy days of the year is pretty common in large companies. There are always deadlines to meet, and most of the times deadlines are passed by days or months. So, there is urgency from the management and managers, but most companies are extremely comfortable with overtimes. Some companies have a CUT-OFF number (above 40 hours) each week, and above which employees are clearly told not to work.

If you ever come across a situation where you are not paid for the overtime work you completed at your job, you need to contact an experienced attorney for that. Our team of attorneys at M&A Law Firm is experienced in dealing with cases like these. So feel free to contact us at 1-866-789-1664, or 972-789-1664, or email us at contact@dallasarealaw.com

The Federal Civil Rights Acts[1] provide the statutory basis for federal actions against federal, state, and/or local officials and all government actors.  The most frequently invoked statute is 42 United States Code Annotated Section 1983, which provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.[2]

The Supreme Court in Monroe v. Pape[3] identified three main goals and/or objectives that was envisioned by the Congress for enacting the Federal Civil Rights Acts: 1) to make ineffective certain type of state laws; 2) to provide legal action or remedy where state law was found to be inadequate; and 3) to provide a federal action and remedy where the state process, although in existence, was not really available or practical.[4]          

            Now, in order to establish liability under Section 1983, a plaintiff must be able to prove that he or she has been deprived of a federal statutory or constitutional right by someone acting under the color of law.[5]  Acting under the color of law covers all those that have the power to act under a governmental authority such as police officers and governmental officials, including city, county, state, and federal actors.[6]  Furthermore, to act under color of law means to act outside the bounds of lawful authority or in contradiction with existing laws, but in such a manner that the acts were done while the governmental actor or official was professing or pretending to act in the performance of his or her official duties under the law.[7]  Simply put, the unlawful acts must consist of an exploitation, infringement, abuse, or misuse of power or authority.[8] 

            Nevertheless, not every exploitation, infringement, abuse, or misuse of power or authority rises to the level of a civil rights claim; such misconduct may be characterized as either actual constitutional violations or negligence claims.  Of course, most alleged violations fall under a negligence claim rather than a Section 1983 action.  For example, police officers are routinely involved in dangerous procedures and with dangerous equipments.  Lack of due care in using police equipment or lack of due care in performing police procedures may give rise to liability under negligence theory; however, under Section 1983, such lack of care is not actionable for a civil rights violation.[9]  Nevertheless, most common causes of action for violations of constitutional rights are police misconducts such as:  1) excessive force and physical brutality; 2) illegal arrest; 3) illegal search and seizure; 4) abuse of process; 5) racial profiling; and 6) falsifying documents. 

             If you believe you have suffered a civil rights violation, the best place to start is to speak with an attorney.  Your attorney will evaluate all aspects of your case and explain all options available to you, in order to ensure the best possible outcome for your case. 

[2] See 42 USCA § 1983.

[3] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S. Ct. 473, 5 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1961). 

[4] See Monroe, 365 U.S. at 172-83.

[5] See 42 USCA § 1983.

[6] See generally, Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S. Ct. 1908, 68 L. Ed. 2d. 420 (1981).  Color of law is a legal term used in official misconduct cases.  It means that the law enforcement officer acted while abusing the authority given to him or her by reason of his or her employment as a public official.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] See generally, City of Los Angeles, v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1983). 

Ross Perot, Jr. has sued Mark Cuban in state court in Texas over the financial management of the Dallas Mavericks, asserting that the basketball team is effectively insolvent and lacks the revenue to pay its debts. Perot sold control of the team to Cuban in 2000 for $285 million, but keep hold of a small stake. Perot claims that under Cuban’s control the Dallas Mavericks he has piled up $273 million in losses and accumulated more than $200 million in debt. Perot wants the court to name a receiver to take over the team, and appoint forensic accounts to investigate the team’s finances. More specifically, Perot says the team lost more than $50 million in the June 2009 fiscal year, and that it has had a net cash flow deficit of $176 million since 2001. He says internal projections show additional losses of $92 million through 2013 with debt rising to $281 million.

Cuban controls 76% of the holding company that owns the Mavericks; he told the Morning News that he is the largest holder of the company’s debt, and that he has personally guaranteed the rest. “So he is suing me saying I can’t pay myself back,” Cuban said. Cuban acquired his fortune with the 1999 sale of Broadcast.com to Yahoo for $5.7 billion.

Stacie Michelle Montgomery was found dead this past Sunday morning on the porch of a home near Arapaho road in which she was shot to death. The home belonged to Scott Matthew Marshall, a local attorney, who now faces murder charges. Police officials arrested Marshall in Dallas and he now is being held at the Dallas County Jail where his bond is set at $200,000. Also involved in the case and arrested is Ms. Sarah Laine Durand who initially faced a murder charge as well but as of recent, police officials downgraded that charge against her. She is now being held on a misdemeanor charge of failure to report a felony. This is not Marshall’s first conviction. He has been previously arrested for drunk driving, gun charges, disorderly conduct, and assault according to criminal records. Court dates have yet to be set for this murder case.

Source: The Dallas Morning News

A settlement has been agreed upon by JP Morgan Chase & Co. that awards more than $700 million in damages (filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC) due to charges by federal regulators that the Wall Street bank made illegal disbursements to acquaintances of public officials to get civic bond business in Jefferson County. JP Morgan will pay civil fines of $25 million, county fines of $50 million, and termination fees of $647 million that claims the county owes from the agreements that ended in cancellation. The SEC also filed another lawsuit against Mr. Charles Lecroy and Douglas McFaddin; two former directors for JP Morgan Chase Bank who “arranged payments of millions of dollars in bogus consulting fees to two other investment banks that had a ‘close relationship’ with county commissioners”. In return for this favor, JP Morgan was compensated for their services of organizing and structuring interest-rate swaps, which were insurance agreements that supposedly defended the county’s billions of dollars in sewer bonds from fluctuating interest rates. According to SEC, JP Morgan did not release or make known any unlawful payments or conflicts of interest according to the bond offering documents but handed over the price of the expenses by billing the county an increased interest rate on the swap transaction.

Source: Birmingham News

Many claims have been settled by the state of Iowa in regards to Medicaid fraud claims with many drug manufacturers, totaling $4.3 billion. The claim against the drug companies stated that false prices had been submitted which resulted in numerous overcharges for consumers who were purchasing pharmaceutical drugs. The state of Iowa sued a total of 78 companies but only 8 of those companies are sending reimbursements to resolve the allegations that claim they deliberately cheated the Iowa Medicaid program by charging inflated drug prices. Iowa has continued to file lawsuits against 70 other drug manufacturers that allegedly overpriced their drugs in order to receive added reimbursements that would be paid by the state’s Medicaid program.

Source: Des Moines Register

A settlement has been made on the case involving the state of Utah and Eli Lilly that results in an award of $24 million. The case involved the pharmaceutical drug, Zyprexa, which is said to be an anti-psychotic drug. Utah-based attorney, Mr. Mark Shurtleff stated that, “the victims of this drug are the ones who can least afford any type of healthcare”. January becomes an opportune time for the settlement money to be collected due to the fact that state lawmakers have a possibility of facing a $850 million shortfall.

Source: News Release From Attorney Generals’ Office

In the GlaxoSmithKline, the jury has awarded 661,000 in damages due to a fraudulent case involving Medicaid. Due to the fact the GlaxoSmithKline had violated Kentucky’s Consumer Protection Act, the judge still has the power to grant considerable fines in the case at hand. The awarded damages were based on the Sandoz result, in which he submitted false prices to the Medicaid program, therefore in the existing case; the amount of the total verdict will increase at a significant rate.

Source: The Jere Beasley Reportspan>

A federal lawsuit has been filed by “The Dukes of Hazard” author through his charitable trust, stating that the studio and the production company have been unfair and deceitful on royalties that stem from the TV show. As the sole trustee for Sequoia Charitable Trust, First National Bank refiled the claim through the Los Angeles District Court a few days ago. A previous lawsuit filed from the bank against the movie studio in July had been dismissed by a federal judge on the bounds of certain jurisdiction issues. In the more recent lawsuit filed, the bank noted that the Trust’s contract has been modified to ensure that no financial interest can be gained by Waldron’s family and the only purpose of this charity would remain – to benefit charity. Waldron created and produced episodes of the “Dukes of Hazzard” after pitching the idea to Warner Brothers in ’78. Years later, Waldron created the charity after he survived a heart attack. He assigned that the any future claims would go against Warner Brothers. A settlement that was agreed upon by Mr. Waldron and Warner Brothers, granted him $6.2 million and 6.5 percent of all earnings in the future created by the franchise.